Benger Laboratories Limited v. RK Laros Company, No. 14219
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 317 F.2d 455 |
| Parties | BENGER LABORATORIES LIMITED, a Corporation of Great Britain, Plaintiff, v. R. K. LAROS COMPANY, Now Pharmachem Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant, and Cutter Laboratories, a California Corporation, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant, v. ARMOUR AND COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Counterclaim-Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 14219,14220. |
317 F.2d 455 (1963)
BENGER LABORATORIES LIMITED, a Corporation of Great Britain, Plaintiff,
v.
R. K. LAROS COMPANY, Now Pharmachem Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant, and
Cutter Laboratories, a California Corporation, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant,
v.
ARMOUR AND COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Counterclaim-Defendant.
Nos. 14219, 14220.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued May 9, 1963.
Decided May 29, 1963.
Stanton T. Lawrence, Jr., Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Barrows & Taylor, New York City (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Taylor & Adams, W. Brown Morton, Jr., Robert J. Kadel, New York City, of counsel, on the brief), for appellants.
Charles J. Merriam, Merriam, Smith & Marshall, Chicago, Ill. (Hayward H. Coburn, Philadelphia, Pa., Jerome B. Klose, Chicago, Ill., Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Timothy L. Tilton, Chicago, Ill., Edward W. Mullinix, Philadelphia, Pa. (Dawson, Tilton, Fallon, Lungmus & Alexander, Chicago, Ill., Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee Armour & Co.
Before McLAUGHLIN and FORMAN, Circuit Judges, and COOLAHAN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
In this patent infringement suit Judge Kirkpatrick in a comprehensive, sound opinion1 held plaintiff's patent to be valid, that its reissue was proper, that it had been infringed by defendant's product and that its licensing arrangements did not violate the antitrust laws. The court found that plaintiff's product claims 1 to 5 inclusive and 12 presented a new, unexpected and important result by using dextran as a complexing agent for ferric hydroxide for the purpose of safely injecting the product intramuscularly. It said:
"That the admittedly old steps of the process would result in obtaining such a solution of dextran were the carbohydrate used could not but have been obvious to a skilled worker in the field, but that is all that was obvious. What was not obvious was that the solution produced would be intramuscularly injectable, and the discovery that it would have this unexpected and unpredictable property qualifies it as patentable."
See Application of Larsen, 292 F.2d 531 (C.C.P.A.1961).
With respect to defendant's contentions that plaintiff failed to state the best method of carrying out its invention and was not entitled to reissue of its patent, the trial court rightly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 77-3230
...309 F.2d 769, 50 CCPA 725 (1962); Benger Laboratories, Ltd. v. R. K. Laros Co., 209 F.Supp. 639, 644 (E.D.Pa.1962), affirmed per curiam, 317 F.2d 455 (3rd Cir. On the other hand, the courts have not required the mode disclosed by the inventor be in fact the optimum mode of carrying out the ......
-
Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak, Civ. A. No. B-74-392-CA.
...as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. Benger Laboratories, Ltd. v. R. K. Laros Co., 209 F.Supp. 639, 644 (E.D.Pa.1962), aff'd per curiam, 317 F.2d 455 (C.A. 3), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 833, 84 S.Ct. 69, 11 L.Ed.2d 64 18. The earliest possible effective invention date for claims 22 through 32 of th......
-
Congoleum Industries, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Company, Civ. A. No. 41762.
...661, 665, 64 S.Ct. 268, 88 L.Ed. 376 (1944). 5 See, Benger Laboratories Ltd. v. R. K. Laros Co., 209 F.Supp. 639 (E.D.Pa.1962), aff'd, 317 F.2d 455 (3d Cir. 6 At trial Armstrong also sought to introduce evidence in support of an allegation that the patents in suit were misused because of th......
-
Plastic Container Corp. v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc., No. 77-1753
...method." Benger Laboratories, Ltd. v. R. K. Laros Co., 209 F.Supp. 639, 644, 135 U.S.P.Q. 11, 15 (E.D.Pa.1962), Aff'd per curiam, 317 F.2d 455, 137 U.S.P.Q. 693 (3d Cir.), Cert. denied, 375 U.S. 833, 84 S.Ct. 69, 11 L.Ed.2d 64, 139 U.S.P.Q. 566 In the previous litigation, the district ......
-
Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 77-3230
...309 F.2d 769, 50 CCPA 725 (1962); Benger Laboratories, Ltd. v. R. K. Laros Co., 209 F.Supp. 639, 644 (E.D.Pa.1962), affirmed per curiam, 317 F.2d 455 (3rd Cir. On the other hand, the courts have not required the mode disclosed by the inventor be in fact the optimum mode of carrying out the ......
-
Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak, Civ. A. No. B-74-392-CA.
...as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. Benger Laboratories, Ltd. v. R. K. Laros Co., 209 F.Supp. 639, 644 (E.D.Pa.1962), aff'd per curiam, 317 F.2d 455 (C.A. 3), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 833, 84 S.Ct. 69, 11 L.Ed.2d 64 18. The earliest possible effective invention date for claims 22 through 32 of th......
-
Congoleum Industries, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Company, Civ. A. No. 41762.
...661, 665, 64 S.Ct. 268, 88 L.Ed. 376 (1944). 5 See, Benger Laboratories Ltd. v. R. K. Laros Co., 209 F.Supp. 639 (E.D.Pa.1962), aff'd, 317 F.2d 455 (3d Cir. 6 At trial Armstrong also sought to introduce evidence in support of an allegation that the patents in suit were misused because of th......
-
Plastic Container Corp. v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc., No. 77-1753
...method." Benger Laboratories, Ltd. v. R. K. Laros Co., 209 F.Supp. 639, 644, 135 U.S.P.Q. 11, 15 (E.D.Pa.1962), Aff'd per curiam, 317 F.2d 455, 137 U.S.P.Q. 693 (3d Cir.), Cert. denied, 375 U.S. 833, 84 S.Ct. 69, 11 L.Ed.2d 64, 139 U.S.P.Q. 566 In the previous litigation, the district ......
-
Antitrust and Intellectual Property
...W. Elec. Co., 304 U.S. 175 (1938). 84. See, e.g. , Benger Labs. v. R. K. Laros Co., 209 F. Supp. 639 (E.D. Pa. 1962), aff’d per curiam , 317 F.2d 455 (3d Cir. 1963); see also INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GUIDELINES, supra note 9, § 2.3 & Example 1. 85. See supra text accompanying note 21; see ......